x96marlow at wmich.edu wrote:
>> I have a quick question.
> Go back to the moment where "successful" life first began, be it in the form
> of simple cells, amino acids, or whatever.
Whoa, tiger. I'm not at all sure that amino acids constitute life by any
definition. If they do, there sure is a lot of bottled "successful life"
in labs.
>There was either a single cell or
> a group of cells. These cells would be either plant-like or animal-like
> ie--able to produce their own food or not. If the cell was animal, what
> would it have had to eat other than the other cells nearby in that first
> colony. Being the good evolutionary cell that it was it ate whatever organic
> matter it could: other cells. Before long, however, would it not have been
> the only cell left? It would have digested its only available food supply.
> True?
BEEP, BEEP, BEEP, Error, retry, fail?
Doesn't sound to me like you've heard of chemosynthesis.
>What would there be left to do but die. You might say that the cell
> somewhere along the line would reproduce creating more food for the original
> cell. However, there can only be a constant amount of energy to be gained
> from eating that colony of cells.
BEEP, BEEP, BEEP, Error, retry, fail?
Energy can come from many sources, see chemosynthesis statement above.
>Eating cells would increase the energy of
> that cell, while reproducing would decrease it. There can be no introduction
> of new energy into that system, because being the only organic life material
> in the universe, it is essentially a closed system.
BEEP, BEEP, BEEP, Error, retry, fail?
I'm not sure a discussion of balance of enthalpy vs entropy is what you
want to get into unless you are interested in energy dynamics.
> The second LAW of
> thermodynamics dictates that that system will eventually be reduced to chaos
> or in simpler terms the single suriving cell that was deemed fittest to
> survive would die because it used all the available resources to become the
> ony surviving form of primitive life. How can true scientists go against
> such fundamental scientifically-proven laws only because they disprove the
> "easiest most painless" explaination of the origin of life? (Since when has
> science been so easy to understand at first?)
> What about scenario #2: a plant cell which produces its own food?
Quite
> convenient. In fact, that would be the ideal way to sustain life beyond the
> perilous first amount of time: Produce your own food using the sun's energy
> and carbon dioxide. However, every evolutionist I've ever talked to paints a
> different picture of early earth. The sun could not be seen. It was hidden
> behind clouds of methane and sulfuric acid. There was no CO2. There was
> only a stifling atmosphere of caustic harmful chemicals.
BEEP, BEEP, BEEP, Error, retry, fail?
I'm not willing to give into your premise here. However, if I were to
agree to your atmospheric scenerio, why do you think organism would be
exposed to it?. Ever heard of water? Diffusion and turbulance can cause
some chemicals to be distributed in water column. This distribution can
be influenced by many factors (thermoclines, haloclines etc). Thus, the
"caustic harmful chemicals" to which you allude may not have come into
contact with any proto life form.
>The same chemicals
> which, incidentally, were needed to create the first forms of life, which
> we also have no proof ever existed in such harmful quantities in the
> history of the Earth. No creature, primitive or otherwise, can possibly
> survive on the earth of evolutionary theory.
I guess, I missed the "proof". Try again, after rebooting.
Howard Blakesley
